News

news-and-career

NEWS

25. oktober, 2018

ECtHR

Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice (ESČP) je v torek, 23. 10. 2018, razsodilo o tožbi medijske hiše proti Sloveniji in s svojo odločbo pritrdilo pritožbi podjetja.

Spor v zadevi se je začel leta 2012, ko je takratni Urad za varstvo konkurence podjetju naložil globo, ker naj mu ta ne bi fizično omogočil izvedbe inšpekcije svojih prostorov. Medijska hiša je vložila zahtevo za začasno odredbo zoper izrečeno globo in sprožila tožbo pred Vrhovnim sodiščem RS, v kateri je zatrjevala, da se inšpektorji niso ustrezno predstavili, ob tem pa naj bi skušali nasilno vdreti v prostore podjetja. Podjetje je zanikalo kakršnokoli oviranje inšpekcije, od Vrhovnega sodišča pa je zahtevalo, da o spornih okoliščinah inšpekcije izvede dokazni postopek.

Po zavrnilnem sklepu Vrhovnega sodišča in zavrženi ustavni pritožbi se je podjetje za sodno varstvo obrnilo na ESČP. Slednje je pri postopku v zvezi z globo ugotovilo kršitev pravice medijske hiše do poštenega sojenja po 1. odstavku 6. člena Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah (EKČP) in izpostavilo, da bi moralo Vrhovno sodišče kot prvi sodni odločevalec v zadevi preučiti tudi dejstvena vprašanja. S tem ko se je Vrhovno sodišče omejilo na pravno presojo in zavrnilo pravno sredstvo pritožnika s sklicem na 57. člen Zakona o preprečevanju omejevanja konkurence,[1] je kršilo pravico podjetja do sodne presoje dejstvene plati upravne odločbe.

Sodišče je v skladu z 41. členom EKČP pritožniku dodelilo tudi 52.500 EUR odškodnine na podlagi tega, da Zakon o upravnem postopku ne omogoča obnove postopka v primeru odločbe ESČP, s katero je ugotovljena kršitev 6. člena Konvencije.

[1] »Tožnik v postopku sodnega varstva ne more navajati novih dejstev in predlagati novih dokazov.«

On Tuesday, October 23rd 2018, The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of a media company versus Slovenia, ruling in favour of the applicant company.

The dispute began in 2012 when the Competition Protection Office fined the applicant company for allegedly not making the inspection of its premises physically possible. The media company filed an application for an interim measure against the fine order and an action before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, claiming that the officers had not properly introduced themselves and had tried to enter the premises in an aggressive manner. The company denied preventing the inspection and demanded that the Supreme Court examine evidence concerning the contentious circumstances of the inspection.

Following the dismissal by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court’s refusal to accept their constitutional complaint, the company lodged an application to the ECHR. The European Court found that the review process in regards to the fine did not meet the requirements, set by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It called attention to the fact that the Supreme Court was the first and only tribunal to examine the company’s case and was as such obliged to examine not only the legal aspects of the case but to review the facts as well. By narrowing its inquiry to questions of law and dismissing the applicant’s action on the basis of Article 57 of the Competition Act[1], the Supreme Court deprived the applicant company of its right to subject the factual aspects of the administrative decision to judicial review.

In accordance with Article 41 of the Convention, the Court afforded satisfaction to the applicant in view of the national Administrative Disputes Act not providing for the reopening of the proceedings on the basis of a judgment, pronouncing a violation of Article 6.

[1] “In judicial review proceedings the complainant may not introduce new facts or present new evidence.”

20. julij, 2018

bank-notes-banknotes

Ustavno sodišče razveljavilo del Zakona o odvzemu premoženja nezakonitega izvora

Ustavno sodišče je razveljavilo 57. člen Zakona o odvzemu premoženja nezakonitega izvora, po katerem se je zakon uporabljal retroaktivno za zadeve, v katerih se je predkazenski ali kazenski postopek začel pred uveljavitvijo zakona, torej pred 29. novembrom 2011 in po 1. januarju 1990.

Ustavno sodišče je v sodbi izpostavilo, da 155. člen Ustave, ki prepoveduje povraten učinek pravnih aktov, sicer dopušča izjeme, vendar le, če to zahteva javna korist in če se s tem ne posega v pridobljene pravice. Zakonodajalec po mnenju ustavnih sodnikov javne koristi, ki bi utemeljevala povratno učinkovanje zakonskih določb o odvzemu premoženja in nezmožnost doseganja zasledovanega cilja brez retroaktivnosti, ni izkazal.

Za tista kazniva dejanja, ki so bila storjena pred dnevom uveljavitve zakona, je skladno s kazensko zakonodajo mogoče odvzeti protipravno premoženjsko korist, ki izhaja neposredno iz konkretnega kaznivega dejanja. Po razveljavitvi 57. člena pa ni mogoče odvzeti premoženja domnevnih storilcev kaznivih dejanj storjenih pred dnevom uveljavitve zakona, zgolj zaradi tega, ker je njihovo premoženje nesorazmerno z njihovimi dohodki, zmanjšanimi za davke in prispevke, oziroma zaradi nedokazanosti zakonitega izvora premoženja.

Povezava do besedila ustavne odločbe: http://www.us-rs.si/media/u-i-6-15.up-33-15.up-1003-15.pdf

The Constitutional Court annulled part of Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act

The Constitutional Court annulled Article 57 of Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act that enabled retroactive application of the Act to cases in which the pre-criminal or criminal proceedings started before its entry into force, i.e. before 29 November 2011 and after 1 January 1990.

In the judgment, the Constitutional Court pointed out that Article 155 of Constitution prohibits the retroactive effect of legal acts, but allows exceptions, if public interest requires so and without interference to the acquired rights. In the opinion of the constitutional court judges, the legislature did not show that public interest justifies retroactivity of legal provisions on confiscation of proceeds of crime and that achieving the pursued goal without retroactivity would not be possible.

For crimes that were committed before the entry into force of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act, only the unlawful material proceeds derived directly from a specific crime can be confiscated in accordance with criminal law. However, after annulment of the Constitutional court, it is not possible to confiscate the assets of alleged criminals for crimes that were committed before the entry into force of the Act, solely because their assets were disproportionate to their income, reduced by taxes and contributions, or because of the lack of evidence of the legal origin of property.

20. marec, 2018

IX. Pitamičevo tekmovanje študentov prava

V petek, 16. marca 2018, je na Ustavnem sodišču RS potekalo finale IX. Pitamičevega tekmovanja študentov prava, ki ga kot sponzor že vrsto let podpira tudi Odvetniška družba Zdolšek. Tekmovanja, ki je zastavljeno kot simulacija postopka pred Ustavnim sodiščem, se je letos udeležilo 30 ekip s po tremi študentkami oziroma študenti z vseh treh slovenskih pravnih fakultet. Ekipe so se na tekmovanju spopadle z namišljenim, a še kako aktualnim primerom, povezanim z vprašanjem meja ustavno dopustnega omejevanja vstopa beguncev in migrantov na državno ozemlje.

Tekmovalni primer je opisoval situacijo, v kateri je državni zbor zaradi strahu pred množičnim prihodom beguncev in migrantov sprejel zakon, na podlagi katerega bi lahko v primeru nevarnosti prevelikega navala beguncev in migrantov Vladi RS odobril sprejetje ostrih ukrepov za omejevanje vstopa na državno ozemlje ter celo začasno prenehanje uporabe oz. omejitev veljavnosti Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah, drugih mednarodnih pogodb in določenih aktov EU. Ekipe so v prvi fazi tekmovanja zastopale pobudnika za presojo ustavnosti takega zakona, nato pa so se morale postaviti še v vlogo Vlade ali Državnega zbora in odgovoriti na memorandum ene izmed ekip.

Vsak pisni izdelek so ocenili trije vrhunski pravni strokovnjaki s področja ustavnega prava, med katerimi so bili tako nekdanji kot sedanji sodniki ustavnega sodišča, sodniki upravnega sodišča, ugledni profesorji prava in drugi. V zaključni del tekmovanja se je uvrstilo osem ekip, ki so za svoja izdelka prejele najvišjo povprečno oceno. Zaključni del tekmovanja je potekal v obliki simulacij ustnih obravnav, ki so potekale pred senati treh ocenjevalcev, prav tako vrhunskih ustavnopravnih strokovnjakov. Četrtfinalne in polfinalne obravnave so potekale v prostorih Pravne fakultete UL, najboljši dve ekipi pa sta na koncu dobili priložnost, da se v razpravni dvorani Ustavnega sodišča pomerita v finalni obravnavi pred sodnim senatom, ki so ga sestavljali predsednica Ustavnega sodišča doc. dr. Jadranka Sovdat, ustavni sodnik Marko Šorli in prof. dr. Igor Kaučič, redni profesor ustavnega prava na Pravni fakulteti UL.

Po oceni sodnega senata je bila na finalni obravnavi najbolj prepričljiva ekipa, ki je nastopala pod vzdevkom Romul. Sestavljale so jo študentke Pravne fakultete UL Pia Novak, Jana Šteblaj in Eva Venier; slednja je prejela tudi priznanje za najboljšo govorko. Vsem trem članicam zmagovalne ekipe iskreno čestitamo, kot del nagrade pa so bile vse tri povabljene tudi na opravljanje plačane prakse v Odvetniški pisarni Zdolšek.

Več informacij o tekmovanju najdete na spletni strani http://pitamicevotekmovanjestudentovprava.blogspot.si/.

IX. Pitamic Moot Court Competition

On Friday, March 16th 2018, the ninth edition of Pitamic constitutional law moot court competition came to a close with the final hearing, which took place at the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia. The competition, which has been supported by Zdolšek Attorneys at law for several years now, is designed as a simulation of the procedure before the Constitutional Court. This year it was attended by 30 teams of three students each from all three Slovenian law faculties.

The case the competitors had to address was fictional, yet it reflected many current legal and wider social and political issues, as it was primarily focused on the question of boundaries of constitutionally permissible limitations of migrations. It described a situation in which the National Assembly, concerned with the possible arrival of large numbers of refugees and other migrants, passed an act that, in case of a large influx of refugees or migrants, allowed the National Assembly to approve and the Government to implement temporary measures that severely restrict the conditions for entering the country and even derogate or limit the use of the European Convention on Human Rights and other international treaties, as well as certain acts of the EU.

Participating teams had to submit two written memoranda, one for the applicant petitioning the Constitutional Court to declare the abovementioned Act unconstitutional, and the other for the respondent, defending the constitutionality of the Act. Each written submission was graded separately by three different judges, selected among the top constitutional law experts, including current and former judges of the Constitutional Court, judges of the Administrative Court, esteemed law professors etc. Eight teams which received the highest average grade qualified for the oral rounds, held in the form of court hearings in front of three judge panels. Quarterfinal and semi-final rounds were held at the University of Ljubljana’s Faculty of Law, and the best two teams had the opportunity to present their arguments at the final hearing, held at the Constitutional Court in front of a panel of three judges that included dr. Jadranka Sovdat, current President of the Constitutional Court, Marko Šorli, judge of the Constitutional Court, and professor dr. Igor Kaučič, professor of constitutional law at Ljubljana’s Faculty of Law.

According to the judges’ assessment, team that competed under the nickname “Romul” was the more convincing of the two finalists. The winning team consisted of three Ljubljana’s Faculty of Law students Pia Novak, Jana Šteblaj and Eva Venier, the latter of which also received the best speaker award. We sincerely congratulate all three members of the winning team, who have all been offered a short-term paid internship at Zdolšek Attorneys at law as part of their reward.

15. december, 2017

The Slovenian Securities Market Agency (ATVP) launches a consultation on ICO

On December 12th 2017 the Securities Market Agency (ATVP) published a consultation document related to the regulation of the field of fundraising by using data block technology (ICO). The financial services industry has recently faced the emergence of new technologies that have impacted both start-up and existing companies. According to the ATVP, the increasing impact of new technologies raises a number of issues, most notably from the legal point of view and the point of view of a level playing field. Given the disruptive nature of new technology and its impact on financial services, the ATVP has focused on the offer of tokens used to raise funds from the general public, i.e. ICO, as the most exposed product of new technologies.

Several ICO procedures have already been carried out in the Republic of Slovenia (or from the Republic of Slovenia) and the size of funds collected through the ICO has also increased.

Due to the proliferation of fundraising by using data block technology (ICO) and a number of legal issues that arise in regard to this, the Securities Market Agency (ATVP) has prepared a consultation document related to the regulation of the ICO field. The document includes a definition of ICO, a warning of ICO-related risks, an analysis of the existing ICO legal framework in relation to the rules falling within the competence of the ATVP and questions for the interested public regarding the possible systematic regulation of the ICO field in the future.

Representatives of the interested public are invited to submit their replies to the consultation document by March 15th 2018. More information on the public consultation is available at the web page of the Slovenian Securities Market Agency: http://www.a-tvp.si/default.aspx?id=2469.

Miklošičeva cesta 5, SI-1000 Ljubljana   |   Phone:  + 386 (0)1 3078 300   |   Fax:  + 386 (0)1 3078 310   |   Email:  zdolsek@zdolsek.com   |   LinkedIn